Post Number: 62
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 07:04 pm: ||
Further to the previous topic under 'pyramids' which has gone somewhat off course, I am interested in the views of the more orthodox Egyptologist types on this board as to the following very simple construction:
As you can see the upper northern shaft of the GP can be perfectly created by using just two lines (or one if you wish to be precise)
Since this is so simply achieved, and gives the angle of the shaft accurate down to 0.01º my question is:
Is this shaft still seen as being symbolic in nature (such as shaft for the soul to reach the stars), in if so, what do you make of this incredibly simple geometry?
Post Number: 110
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:26 pm: ||
Are you suggesting perhaps that the Architects of the GP sat down and figured this out on paper as you show here? What sort of symbolism would this arrangement entail? That's a good question. It seems to me to be another Geometrical fluke- an architectural anomaly. To work this out in stone may have been possible for the Egyptians, (look at how perfectly hewn the GP's Descending Corridor is, for example), but why? What would this theory symbolize and why does it not seem to apply for the Queen's Chamber Air Shafts as well? Why would connecting the two air shafts with a right-angle be so religiously terrific?
Post Number: 34
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 05:28 pm: ||
what does really surprise me is how easy is to trace the N upper shaft. I know there is a way to explain position, size etc. of the rest, but this is a different story.
You only trace two lines, you don't even need to know how to draw a circle, just how to split a segment in two.
So the question in my mind is not if shafts are related with religion or not. The question is: why is the rest of the architecture so complex, compared with this?
Let me add one more consideration:
in the original design I would expect the architect to trace the main layout with the easiest possible instruments, and go for more complex solutions only to add something that does not fit elsewhere. So should I think that the AE traced the North upper shaft first and then designed the rest of the GP?
Something seems to be wrong... maybe there is another explanation to this.